Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Roddicus Butler was tried by jury and convicted of the murder of two-year-old Jamira Washington. Following the denial of his motion for new trial, Butler appealed, contending that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction, that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress certain statements that he gave to law enforcement, and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Upon our review of the briefs and record, the Supreme Court found no error and affirmed. View "Butler v. Georgia" on Justia Law

A group of firefighters brought a class action lawsuit against the City of Atlanta alleging that the city breached its employment contracts with the firefighters as well as its statutory obligation to provide a fair and impartial promotional process by failing to prevent cheating on a fire lieutenant promotional exam. The trial court issued an interlocutory injunction prohibiting the city from making any permanent promotions based on the results of the challenged exam and providing that all appointments would be temporary pending a final decision on the merits of the case. After the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, the trial court crafted a permanent injunction that contained mandatory instructions regarding how the city must re-test. Appellants, all of whom are firefighters who scored 90 or higher on the first exam, appealed the permanent injunction to challenge provisions of the injunction that treated them as "probable cheaters." Appellees (named plaintiffs in the class action), moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that appellants lacked standing to challenge the trial court’s judgment because they were not parties to the original action and because the judgment was not entered against them. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court found appellants had standing to appeal the judgment in this case. Further, the Court held that the trial court abused its discretion in fashioning injunctive relief specific to appellants and erred in entering judgment against them. Accordingly, the Court vacated those portions of the permanent injunction that required the city to treat appellants differently from class members. View "Barham v. City of Atlanta" on Justia Law

Appellant Sajid Fitzgerald Leslie was convicted of murder and arson in connection with the death of his former girlfriend Lori Hastings. He raised several issues on appeal, arguing: (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred in admitting certain character evidence and other testimony; (3) the trial court erred in failing to exclude Appellant's statements to the police on grounds that he was not given Miranda warnings; (4) he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding Appellant's arguments were without merit, the Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's conviction. View "Leslie v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Michael Reddings was convicted of murder, aggravated assault, and two weapons possession counts in connection with the 2009 stabbing death of Daisy Pearl Brown. Appellant appealed the denial of his motion for new trial, contending that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to merge the aggravated assault conviction with the murder conviction and by denying his motion for change of venue. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed that the failure to merge was error, and therefore vacated his convictions for aggravated assault and the related weapons possession count. In all other respects, the Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. View "Reddings v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Michael Kidd appealed his convictions for murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime stemming from the shooting death of Ronald Davenport. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Kidd v. Georgia " on Justia Law

Craig Heidt was tried by jury and convicted of the murders of his father and brother, an aggravated assault and aggravated battery upon his mother, burglary, attempt to commit arson in the first degree, and three counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. He appealed, contending that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions and that the trial court erred when it disqualified one of his lawyers for a conflict of interest, denied his motion to disqualify the trial judge, denied his motion to change venue, attempted to rehabilitate prospective jurors who already had formed an opinion of his guilt, admitted certain evidence of his prior difficulties with his brother, and rejected his "Brady" claim. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Heidt v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Carla Joan Simmons was found guilty of felony murder and various other offenses in connection with the strangulation death of Paul Rucker. On appeal, she contended that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain her convictions and that the trial court erred in granting the State’s motion to withdraw the parties’ plea agreement. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Simmons v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Zerrick Breion Walker was convicted of the malice murder of Ronaldo Lorenzo Hill and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. On appeal, he contended that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain his convictions and that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel; he also contended that the trial court, in ruling on his amended motion for new trial, did not apply the standard of review requiring the exercise of discretion under OCGA sections 5-5-20 and 5-5-21 and sought remand of his case to the trial court for proper consideration of the amended motion for new trial. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed with Appellant's latter contention and remanded the case to the trial court to consider the amended motion for new trial under the proper standard. View "Walker v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Bobby Gibson appealed his convictions for the murder of Tasha Brown and the aggravated assault of her mother, Yvette Brown, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court disagreed with Gibson's contentions and affirmed his convictions. View "Gibson v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Darius Ellis was tried by jury and convicted of the murder and attempted armed robbery of Marvel Stripling, as well as possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Ellis appealed, contending that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) that the trial court improperly limited his voir dire of prospective jurors; (3) that the trial court improperly commented on the credibility of a witness; and (4) that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Having reviewed the briefs and record, the Supreme Court found no reversible error, and affirmed. View "Ellis v. Georgia" on Justia Law